The second chance the United States cannot afford to pass up
By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted September 17, 2001
A quiz for those of you who follow public policy: Which world
leader made the strongest statement of outrage at what
happened to America on September 11th and which same
leader called for a worldwide effort to combat terrorism?
Take your pick from the following choices:
A.) The Prime Minister of Great Britain.
B.) The Chancellor of Germany.
C.) The President of France
D.) The President of Mexico.
E.) The Prime Minister of Canada.
F.) The President of Russia.
Many of you probably answered A: The Prime Minister of Great
Britain. After all, the United States and Great Britain have long
had a special relationship. And it hasn't seemed to matter
whether a Conservative or Labor government was in power in
London or whether a Republican or Democratic administration
was in power in Washington because Britain and the United
States always seemed to work in tandem.
A few of you might have chosen B: The Chancellor of West
Germany. Ever since the United States helped to peacefully
rebuild Germany after World War II, again it hasn't mattered
much whether the Christian Democrats or the Social Democrats
were in power because Germany has often followed the lead of
the USA.
A few might have picked D: The President of Mexico. Vicente
Fox Quesada and President George W. Bush have been acting
like political Siamese twins of late, each trying to outdo the other
in expressing solidarity with one another.
Even a very few of you might have selected E: The Prime
Minister of Canada. While the current Liberal government is not
that keen on George W. Bush, nevertheless what has happened
to New York and Washington could easily happen to Ottawa
and Toronto. Like it or not, the government of Canada more or
less has to march in lock step with Washington at least on a
matter such as terrorism.
I know none of you picked C: The President of France.
Somehow Paris finds a way to be out of step with Washington
regardless of which party is in power.
Well, if any of you picked any of those choices, you were
wrong. That's right. THE strongest statement against what
happened to this country has come from F): Vladimir Putin, the
President of Russia. Moreover it was Putin who first suggested a
coordinated worldwide response to this attack on the civilized
world.
Putin understands what is at stake here. He is confronting this
kind of extremism in his own back yard. That is what Chechnya
is all about. When the first civil war was fought, Chechnya was
demanding independence. Boris Yeltsin vowed to crush that
effort. The public was vehemently against Yeltsin and sided with
the people of Chechnya. Yeltsin eventually gave up the war and
gave Chechnya much of what it wanted. But the radical
fundamentalist leadership of Chechnya wasn't content with
running its own affairs. No, the leadership announced that it was
going after Dagestan, a neighboring province. By then Vladimir
Putin had just assumed power in Russia. He drew a line in the
sand and said nothing doing. His stance, unlike Yeltsin's, was
wildly popular. And even though he has been unsuccessful in
delivering on his pledge to end the war swiftly, he remains
extremely popular precisely because the Russian people
understand what the threats from the leaders of Chechnya mean
to Russia as a whole. Putin recently suggested, by the way, that
only a revival of Christianity in Russia would permit his nation to
meet the threat from fundamentalist extremists.
Remember, one decade ago the Soviet Union fell. The goodwill
toward the United States at that moment was extraordinary. The
Russian people finally learned that they had been lied to for
decades and they were eager to hear and believe anything we
had to say or sell. But the first Bush Administration (Number 41)
was not keen on the breakup of the Soviet Union. Only months
earlier then-President George Herbert Walker Bush had gone to
the Ukraine and delivered what we called his "Chicken Kiev"
speech in which he pleaded with the Ukrainian people not to opt
for independence. As soon as the Ukrainian people had the
chance, they voted for independence by a margin of 90 per cent
to 10 per cent. So Bush in the waning days of his Administration
did little to take advantage of the window of opportunity that a
newly independent Russia provided.
Then came Bill Clinton. He made about every mistake one could
make in handling Russia. First he made all sorts of promises and
never delivered on most of them. In that respect he was no
different from the elder Bush who also made unfulfilled promises.
More importantly, instead of backing the democracy movement
as a whole and supporting the development of democratic
institutions across the board, Clinton put all of his eggs in the
Yeltsin basket. Thus, as Yeltsin's popularity sunk to single digits
by the end of his tumultuous second term, so did America's
popularity go crashing down too. It was a tragedy beyond
measure. Anti-Americanism was revived to heights not seen
since the height of the Cold War. Only this time that view
represented the genuine sentiment of the people rather than the
forced sentiment dictated by the Communist party.
Well, President Putin, having been handed the power by Yeltsin,
ran and won the Presidency in his own right. Although he has
done some things that make Western observers wince, he
nevertheless remains a remarkably popular figure in Russia.
He and George Bush have hit it off. Bush says he knows he is a
man who can be trusted. It appears that because of that
relationship the United States and Russia will be able to work
out some sort of arrangement that will permit the US to withdraw
from the l972 ABM treaty with Russia's approval, and to
develop a missile shield, perhaps in co-operation with Russia.
In any case, the United States is being given a second chance.
The events of September 11th may bring about consequences
that the terrorists could not have imagined. Given the passionate
views of President Putin on what happened to the United States,
it may be that Russia and the United States can again become
allies.
Then if George W. Bush is smart, he will not make any promises
he does not intend to deliver upon. But he may well be able to
deliver on a wide range of initiatives that will strengthen Russia
while at the same time helping the United States.
History seldom affords a nation another chance. This is truly an
historic opportunity.
Let us hope and pray that George W. Bush seizes the moment.
Paul M. Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com